incarceration or institutionalization can delay emotional growth

I once read a criminal profile of a serial killer made by a forensic psychologist. The forensic psychologist wrote the following: "Age is difficult to predict because this analysis is a measure of an offender’s emotional age as opposed to his chronological age. Factors such as incarceration or institutionalization can delay the emotional growth of an individual."

This seems counterintuitive to me. I have always thought that hardship makes a person more mature. The forensic psychologist was profiling a criminal in America. American prisons are generally fairly rough (violent) places. Incarceration in an American prison would certainly seem like a hardship to me. To me, I would have thought that incarceration would tend to make a person more mature rather than more immature (if it had any effect on a person's maturity level). The forensic psychologist however said that incarceration can delay the emotional growth of an individual.

Do you people agree with the psychologist that incarceration can delay the emotional growth of an individual? Has anyone ever researched this?

How or why would incarceration delay the emotional growth of an individual?

Staff: Mentor

My guess would be that the offender has little opportunity to interact with normal people in a non prison setting which impedes the growth of real maturity. Instead he must look upon his fellow offenders as dangerous and unpredictable just as they view him. He begins to follow the law of the jungle, joins a pack or develops a cooperative survival strategy. Once released he must learn to live again and to trust people and be trusted.

On top of that offenders are interested in getting of prison in any way they can, by taking courses, writing letters of apology to the victims where they minimize their crime and getting religion. There is no growth of maturity when everything they think and do centers around them and their desire to impress the parole board and get out of prison.

American prisons are generally fairly rough (violent) places.
...
To me, I would have thought that incarceration would tend to make a person more mature rather than more immature (if it had any effect on a person's maturity level).

If you are in an environment where the only way to settle an dispute is with your fists (assuming you haven't acquired some "more effective" weapons somehow), will that make you a more mature person?

II. The Psychological Effects of Incarceration:
On the Nature of Institutionalization

The adaptation to imprisonment is almost always difficult and, at times, creates habits of thinking and acting that can be dysfunctional in periods of post-prison adjustment.
[...]

Among other things, the process of institutionalization (or "prisonization") includes some or all of the following psychological adaptations:

A. Dependence on institutional structure and contingencies.

Among other things, penal institutions require inmates to relinquish the freedom and autonomy to make their own choices and decisions and this process requires what is a painful adjustment for most people. [...]

B. Hypervigilance, interpersonal distrust, and suspicion.

In addition, because many prisons are clearly dangerous places from which there is no exit or escape, prisoners learn quickly to become hypervigilant and ever-alert for signs of threat or personal risk. Because the stakes are high, and because there are people in their immediate environment poised to take advantage of weakness or exploit carelessness or inattention, interpersonal distrust and suspicion often result.[...]

C. Emotional over-control, alienation, and psychological distancing.

Shaping such an outward image requires emotional responses to be carefully measured. Thus, prisoners struggle to control and suppress their own internal emotional reactions to events around them. Emotional over-control and a generalized lack of spontaneity may occur as a result. [...]

D. Social withdrawal and isolation.

Some prisoners learn to find safety in social invisibility by becoming as inconspicuous and unobtrusively disconnected from others as possible. The self-imposed social withdrawal and isolation may mean that they retreat deeply into themselves, trust virtually no one, and adjust to prison stress by leading isolated lives of quiet desperation. In extreme cases, especially when combined with prisoner apathy and loss of the capacity to initiate behavior on one's own, the pattern closely resembles that of clinical depression. [...]

E. Incorporation of exploitative norms of prison culture.

In addition to obeying the formal rules of the institution, there are also informal rules and norms that are part of the unwritten but essential institutional and inmate culture and code that, at some level, must be abided. For some prisoners this means defending against the dangerousness and deprivations of the surrounding environment by embracing all of its informal norms, including some of the most exploitative and extreme values of prison life. Note that prisoners typically are given no alternative culture to which to ascribe or in which to participate. [....]

G. Post-traumatic stress reactions to the pains of imprisonment.

For some prisoners, incarceration is so stark and psychologically painful that it represents a form of traumatic stress severe enough to produce post-traumatic stress reactions once released. [...]

This is particularly true of persons who return to the freeworld lacking a network of close, personal contacts with people who know them well enough to sense that something may be wrong. Eventually, however, when severely institutionalized persons confront complicated problems or conflicts, especially in the form of unexpected events that cannot be planned for in advance, the myriad of challenges that the non-institutionalized confront in their everyday lives outside the institution may become overwhelming. The facade of normality begins to deteriorate, and persons may behave in dysfunctional or even destructive ways because all of the external structure and supports upon which they relied to keep themselves controlled, directed, and balanced have been removed.

Among other things, penal institutions require inmates to relinquish the freedom and autonomy to make their own choices and decisions and this process requires what is a painful adjustment for most people.

Once, back when I was entry level in a machine shop, they hired a new guy who was straight out of a long stint in the Marines. The boss told me to train him in on the basic stuff.

Eventually I noticed he had a peculiar habit of explaining everything he was about to do, "I'm going to wash these parts now, then put them in the tumbler," "I'm going to take these over to Dave for him to drill the holes," "I'm going to start deburring these aluminum ones, now," "I'm going to go take a leak now," etc.

He did it before he initiated any new activity whatever. It became annoying. Eventually it occurred to me this report of every future act for my consideration must have been something he had to do in the Marines. Since I'd been designated to train him in, he regarded me as some sort of authority whom he was required to provide with a running update of his activity.

I think "Dependence on institutional structure and contingencies," probably emotionally cripples anyone who is part of any heavy handed institution. They lose all sense of how to function autonomously outside that structure.

Staff: Mentor

Once, back when I was entry level in a machine shop, they hired a new guy who was straight out of a long stint in the Marines. The boss told me to train him in on the basic stuff.

Eventually I noticed he had a peculiar habit of explaining everything he was about to do, "I'm going to wash these parts now, then put them in the tumbler," "I'm going to take these over to Dave for him to drill the holes," "I'm going to start deburring these aluminum ones, now," "I'm going to go take a leak now," etc.

He did it before he initiated any new activity whatever. It became annoying. Eventually it occurred to me this report of every future act for my consideration must have been something he had to do in the Marines. Since I'd been designated to train him in, he regarded me as some sort of authority whom he was required to provide with a running update of his activity.

I think "Dependence on institutional structure and contingencies," probably emotionally cripples anyone who is part of any heavy handed institution. They lose all sense of how to function autonomously outside that structure.

I disagree with all of the replies so far. In my original post, I asked if incarceration could delay the emotional growth of an individual. I also asked how or why incarceration could delay emotional growth.

You people responded by pointing out ways that incarceration could make an individual socially immature, but you did not point out ways that incarceration could make an individual emotionally immature.

First a little history as to where my thoughts and comments come from. I was myself institutionalized as a young person. I spent the years from 1961 to 1970 in and out of a state hospital. My experiences and observations there shape these comments.

Lest anyone think otherwise, just as in a prison, punishment was a very large element in the normal functioning of the institutional hospital ward. Every patient was expected to do what he was told. Authority was absolute and held by those nurse technicians and staff who were there every day. All our rights as human beings were stripped from us. In fact, prisoners today enjoy more rights by law than were ever had by people put into mental institutions. It is also important to know that at the time I was first put in an institution people were still being committed because their families or in the case of some married women, their husbands did not want them around anymore. While I was diagnosed at age fourteen as schizophrenic and put on psychotropic drugs and spent years in and out of the institution, years later, when side effects forced me to discontinue the drugs, I discovered that in fact I wasn't schizophrenic at all and never needed the drugs that so affected my sensibilties and personal freedom for so many years previous.

Here are my thoughts : Incarceration or institutionalization provides an artificial environment in which people cannot freely express themselves , nor can their honest perceptions be validated. In this type of environment, conformity and obedience go hand in hand with ones survival and personal welfare/safety. In such an artificial restrictive environment choices are very limited, so the reflection and personal investment required for making good choices or learning from bad choices is in large part outside the world of the imprisoned/institutionalized. I believe that a person must be truly free to make his own choices and that it is the process of making choices and learning from these choices that a person grows emotionally. Emotional growth requires a personal investment.

In an institution, survival frequently demands the denial of self needs, individuality, and even one's moral code since the culture inside is not infrequently affected and controlled by sadistic people who enjoy punishing those who stand out and don't fit in to their idea of what the inmates should or should not be like or act like. Staff on power trips are always there somewhere.
Also, labels rule in the institution. Control over others is provided by having two very separate agendas according to whether you are part of the group in charge or whether you are part of the group imprisoned/institutionalized.
Another aspect of this institutionalized environment is the need/desire of those in charge to administer punishment for non-compliant behavior. A prisoner will be isolated and lose privileges; an institutional patient will be isolated (seclusion) , lose privileges, plus be administered powerful doses of psychotropic drugs meant to subdue or knock them for a loop and keep them quiet.

Bottom line: Emotional growth requires the elements of honesty , reflection, choice--ie freedom to choose. I would argue that a choice made under circumstances which do not allow for these requirements is not really a choice. In a prison or other institution, ones survival is the uppermost goal, and moral compromises are often made for the sake of survival. This compromise of self and morality impede and confuse emotional growth and stabilty. One might survive this experience but he will not be emotionally healthier as a result of this.

People who face tragedies and are free to work through them, can indeed grow emotionally and learn from some really difficult and terrible experiences, but they must be free to do so. On the other hand, we all know people who avoid thinking about or deeply reflecting upon or examining their own choices and behaviors in life. As a result they do not take responsibility for them, are unable to learn from or move beyond them, think they can't change , and don't emotionally grow because of this.

He did it before he initiated any new activity whatever. It became annoying. Eventually it occurred to me this report of every future act for my consideration must have been something he had to do in the Marines. Since I'd been designated to train him in, he regarded me as some sort of authority whom he was required to provide with a running update of his activity.

It's called "drill." Setting the routine into his mind. Reduces the number of mistakes.

My husband was in the service for twenty years and is now retired military. He always tells me that individual thinking is not welcomed. The military culture doesn't do well when its soldiers start to reflect upon or think about things outside the box. It would be an expected result then that some people getting out of the military would have more trouble thinking and acting independently -especially if they had been in combat situations where the imperative to follow orders without thinking about them, ie. automatically, is connected to the troops welfare and success in combat. In the military doing things by the book is a big deal and the book doesn't have an index listing 'personal options for interpretation/actions.

A military guy once told me that the reason they don't want older people in the military is partially this;
if your older than, say, 30 and never been in the military, you are more likely to have your own ideas of how
to do things and your way of thinking is not as easily malleable as that of a younger person with less life and
overall experience. EDIT: this may be the reverse situation of that of ZoobyShoe's soldier.

An emotionally immature person is controlled by his emotions. An emotionally mature person controls his emotions.

Social immaturity and emotional immaturity are different things.

Maybe because the person must hide his (most likely a man, prison ratio around 9:1 male: female) emotions , to avoid being vulnerable in a situation where let his guard down. Then, not being able to have genuine emotions, he cannot get to understand his inner psychological workings, which is necessary to be able to develop emotionally. Notice the advice you hear ( or at least I have heard), you're given about how to handle yourself when you're in tough neighborhoods: don't make eye contact, don't show emotions....vulnerability is a luxury you cannot afford in the jungle.

EDIT: I think it is more accurate to say that a mature person can regulate/manage , instead of control their emotions.

My husband was in the service for twenty years and is now retired military. He always tells me that individual thinking is not welcomed. The military culture doesn't do well when its soldiers start to reflect upon or think about things outside the box. It would be an expected result then that some people getting out of the military would have more trouble thinking and acting independently -especially if they had been in combat situations where the imperative to follow orders without thinking about them, ie. automatically, is connected to the troops welfare and success in combat. In the military doing things by the book is a big deal and the book doesn't have an index listing 'personal options for interpretation/actions.

Completely agree. Think of how effective it would be to have a soldier wondering, in the trenches, " Is this was fair"?" Is it moral for me to kill "?, etc. Thinking and reflecting cme at the expense of slowing down action. Conversely, those who reflect little tend to, and are able to, move faster.

Then, not being able to have genuine emotions, he cannot get to understand his inner psychological workings, which is necessary to be able to develop emotionally.

Here is where I disagree with you. A prison inmate has to hide his emotions, but I disagree with your statement that a prison inmate is not able to have genuine emotions. A person who hides his emotions still has emotions. He just does not show his emotions. For example, a prison inmate must never show fear, but that does not mean that he does not feel the emotion of fear.

"He cannot get to understand his inner psychological workings."

I think this is just nonsense. What does inner psychological workings mean?

You're saying that a difference between emotionally mature people and emotionally immature people is that emotionally mature people understand their inner psychological workings (whatever that means) and emotionally immature people don't.

Notice the advice you hear ( or at least I have heard), you're given about how to handle yourself when you're in tough neighborhoods: don't make eye contact, don't show emotions....vulnerability is a luxury you cannot afford in the jungle.

Just because a person hides their emotions does not mean that they don't feel emotions.

EDIT: I think it is more accurate to say that a mature person can regulate/manage , instead of control their emotions.

To me, I don't see any substantive difference (relating to this topic) in the words regulate/manage and control.

Here are my thoughts : Incarceration or institutionalization provides an artificial environment in which people cannot freely express themselves , nor can their honest perceptions be validated. In this type of environment, conformity and obedience go hand in hand with ones survival and personal welfare/safety. In such an artificial restrictive environment choices are very limited, so the reflection and personal investment required for making good choices or learning from bad choices is in large part outside the world of the imprisoned/institutionalized. I believe that a person must be truly free to make his own choices and that it is the process of making choices and learning from these choices that a person grows emotionally. Emotional growth requires a personal investment.

It might be true that emotional growth requires a personal investment. I wish I had some sort of other resources to corroborate this.

Bottom line: Emotional growth requires the elements of honesty , reflection, choice--ie freedom to choose. I would argue that a choice made under circumstances which do not allow for these requirements is not really a choice. In a prison or other institution, ones survival is the uppermost goal, and moral compromises are often made for the sake of survival. This compromise of self and morality impede and confuse emotional growth and stabilty. One might survive this experience but he will not be emotionally healthier as a result of this.

People who face tragedies and are free to work through them, can indeed grow emotionally and learn from some really difficult and terrible experiences, but they must be free to do so. On the other hand, we all know people who avoid thinking about or deeply reflecting upon or examining their own choices and behaviors in life. As a result they do not take responsibility for them, are unable to learn from or move beyond them, think they can't change , and don't emotionally grow because of this.

I agree that a person in prison has to hide his emotions to avoid being vulnerable.

Here is where I disagree with you. A prison inmate has to hide his emotions, but I disagree with your statement that a prison inmate is not able to have genuine emotions. A person who hides his emotions still has emotions. He just does not show his emotions. For example, a prison inmate must never show fear, but that does not mean that he does not feel the emotion of fear.

"He cannot get to understand his inner psychological workings."

I think this is just nonsense. What does inner psychological workings mean?

You're saying that a difference between emotionally mature people and emotionally immature people is that emotionally mature people understand their inner psychological workings (whatever that means) and emotionally immature people don't.

Just because a person hides their emotions does not mean that they don't feel emotions.

Of course not, I agree. But you cannot experience the emotion "As it is ", without the distortion of fear and the repression that comes with it; this creates "noise", or distortion from the repression. Without the original expression you cannot understand it.

By inner workings I mean understand, e.g., what makes you upset, angry, what helps you manage your states, etc.

And the difference between control and regulate is that you cannot prevent the emotion nor change it, you can just figure out how to deal with it. Just like with risk; you cannot control it nor prevent it; risk will be there, you just need to learn to manage it, to figure out what to do and how to deal with risky situations.
the original form of the emotion

To me, I don't see any substantive difference (relating to this topic) in the words regulate/manage and control.

This may be a clearer description/explanation for what I meant, by giving an example:
I was feeling down tonight; I cannot _control_ the fact that I am feeling down, i.e., I cannot make it go away; instead, I need to manage it, i.e., I need to figure out what actions I can take to feel better. For that, I need to understand my inner workings, in the sense that : when I am down, it is usually because: I did not have enough human contact for a few days, or because I have been worried about my job/school and I have not gone out to relax, etc. a sort of "owner's manual" for your emotional states. But in order o understand these cause-effect relations of my emotional states, I need to experience my emotions in full, which it is difficult to do if my guard is usually up because I am in a situation, as in prison, where I may pay a high price for showing vulnerability.

WWGD, I still disagree. You're saying that if you are experiencing emotional problems, you need to understand why you feel the way you do. But in order to understand why you feel the way you do, you need "to experience your emotions in full." I still don't see why you are not experiencing your emotions in full when you have to keep your guard up. The way I see it, if you feel sad, it takes more maturity to continue to be tough in a prison setting where you have to never show vulnerability. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree.

zoobyshoe wrote: "I think "Dependence on institutional structure and contingencies," probably emotionally cripples anyone who is part of any heavy handed institution. They lose all sense of how to function autonomously outside that structure."

I think that perhaps that is true of some prisons around the world, and it is probably true of the tiny minority of prisons in America even. When someone depends on the structure, then they don't have to manage their emotions as much. But I would think that the violence and hardship of most American prisons would have a greater effect on promoting maturity than the institutional structure of a prison would cause immaturity. Just my opinion.